Steve Titus et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2019

14058423 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/058,423 10/21/2013 Steve Titus OV-105A 2758
74712 7590 11/01/2019
Muir Patent Law, PLLC
P.O. Box 1213
9913 Georgetown Pike, Suite 200
Great Falls, VA 22066
EXAMINER
VO, TUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
pto@muirpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte STEVE TITUS, ZHONG ZHANG, JOHN I. W. CLARK,
ALAN J. LIPTON, KELLY SCHOMBURG, PETER L. VENETIANER,
and LI YU

Appeal 2018-003761
Application 14/058,423
Technology Center 2400

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21 and 23–34, which constitute all
the claims pending in this Application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Avigilon Fortress
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003761
Application 14/058,423

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure generally relates to video surveillance systems
and, more specifically, to “extract[ing] video primitives and extract[ing]
event occurrences from the video primitives using event discriminators” to
“create and define additional video analytic rules.” Spec., Abstract. The
claimed invention relates to defining an area of interest or a tripwire to
create a rule by tracking an object in a video in a configuration mode and
using the rule to detect an event in a subsequent video. See Spec. ¶¶ 101,
138–147, Figs. 29A–31. Claims 1, 29, 33, and 34 are independent claims.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An event detection method, comprising:
receiving a user input to a video surveillance system to put
the video surveillance system into a configuration mode;
during the configuration mode, processing a first video
portion to track an object in the first video portion by the video
surveillance system;
using, at least in part, the tracking of the object in the first
video portion to define at least one of an area of interest and a
tripwire to create a first rule;
configuring the video surveillance system to detect an
event in a second video portion using the first rule; and
after exiting configuration mode, performing video
surveillance to detect the event in the second video portion using
the first rule.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 8–21, 23–30, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious in view of Ettinger (US 2005/0073585 A1; Apr. 7, 2005)
and Elazar (US 2004/0161133 A1; Aug. 19, 2004). Final Act. 2–11.
Appeal 2018-003761
Application 14/058,423

3
Claims 6, 7, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Ettinger, Elazar, and Joyce (US 2004/0006424 A1;
Jan. 8, 2004). Final Act. 11.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds a combination of Ettinger and Elazar teaches or
suggests every limitation recited in independent claims 1, 29, 33, and 34.
Final Act. 2–4, 7–11. Of particular relevance to the dispositive issue with
respect to this Appeal, the Examiner finds Ettinger teaches or suggests
“using, at least in part, the tracking of the object in the first video portion to
define at least one of an area of interest and a tripwire” (the “defining a
tripwire” step). Final Act. 3 (citing Ettinger ¶¶ 53, 56–57, Fig. 4), 8, 10;
Ans. 6 (additionally citing Ettinger ¶¶ 66–69, Figs. 8–11). In particular, the
Examiner finds Ettinger discloses detecting whether objects cross a
threshold, which teaches using a virtual tripwire. Final Act. 3 (citing Ettinger
¶¶ 53, 56–57, Fig. 4). With respect to the defining a tripwire step, the
Examiner also finds Ettinger discloses tracking an object. Ans. 6 (citing
Ettinger ¶¶ 66–69, Figs. 8–11).
Appellant argues the proposed combination fails to teach or suggest,
among other things, a configuration mode that uses the tracking of an object
to define a tripwire or an area of interest. Appeal Br. 12–15; Reply Br. 2–4.
Specifically, Appellant acknowledges that Ettinger discloses tracking objects
and using tripwires to detect events but argues Ettinger fails to teach or
suggest tracking an object “in a calibration or configuration sense” because
Ettinger discloses tripwires are predefined, “not defined by tracking any
object in a video image.” Appeal Br. 12–15 (citing Ettinger ¶¶ 40, 53, 56–
57, Figs. 1, 4). Appellant further argues Ettinger’s paragraphs 66 through 69
Appeal 2018-003761
Application 14/058,423

4
and Figures 8 through 11 describe “a scheme to track an object,” “a
continued process of tracking the object through occlusions.” Reply Br. 3–5.
Appellant contends none of the cited paragraphs or figures provide any
teaching or suggestion to use tracking of an object in one video portion to
define an area of interest or a tripwire. Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellant. We agree with the Examiner’s apparent
undisputed findings that Ettinger teaches both tracking an object, see
Ettinger ¶¶ 66–69, Figs. 8–11, and using virtual tripwires to detect events,
see Ettinger ¶¶ 53, 56–57, Fig. 4. Nevertheless, the Examiner’s rejection is
problematic because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient explanation
demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood Ettinger’s disclosures of tracking an object and using tripwires to
detect events as teaching or suggesting using the disclosed object tracking to
define a tripwire or area of interest, as recited in Appellant’s claims. As
Appellant also argues, the claims do not merely require using tripwires, but
the claims explicitly recite “using . . . the tracking of the object . . . to define
. . . a tripwire” or an area of interest. See Appeal Br. 22 (claim 1, emphasis
added). In other words, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and find the
cited portions of Ettinger teach or suggest using tripwires or areas of interest
to track objects. However, we see nothing in these passages or the
Examiner’s explanations that teaches what is claimed—using tracking of an
object to define or create a tripwire or area of interest.
Accordingly, we are constrained by this record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious in view of Ettinger and Elazar.
For the same reasons, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 29, 33,
and 34, which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2–5,
Appeal 2018-003761
Application 14/058,423

5
8–21, and 23–28, which ultimately depend from claim 1, and dependent
claim 30, which depends directly from claim 29 as obvious in view of
Ettinger and Elazar. The Examiner does not find Joyce, which was cited in
the rejection of claims 6, 7, 31, and 32, cures the identified deficiency of
claims 1 and 29, from which these claims ultimately depend. Therefore, we
also reverse the rejections of claims 6, 7, 31, and 32 as obvious in view of
Ettinger, Elazar, and Joyce.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–21 and 23–34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8–21, 23–30,
33, 34
103 Ettinger, Elazar 1–5, 8–21,
23–30, 33, 34
6, 7, 31, 32 103 Ettinger, Elazar,
Joyce
6, 7, 31, 32
Overall Outcome 1–21, 23–34
REVERSED